An appellate court has the authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Order XLI Rule 33 of the CPC, to enhance compensation to ensure just and fair relief for claimants, even in the absence of a formal cross-appeal or cross-objection by the claimants.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 09.02.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh in the claim petition filed under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Tribunal’) on the ground that the liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,31,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum has been wrongly fixed upon the appellant-Insurance Company and the compensation being on higher side.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.12.2014 at about 8:15 a.m., Rajinder Sharma @ Bintu Kumar, since deceased was crossing Ambala-Chandigarh road in the area of Devi Nagar towards Kohinoor Dhaba, Devi Nagar; that he crossed more than half of the road, when Haryana Roadways bus bearing registration No. HR68-A-1173 (hereinafter called as “offending vehicle”), owned by respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 3 in rash and negligent manner, came from the side of Ambala and rammed against Rajinder Sharma; that as a result of accident, Rajinder Sharma fell on the road and was run over by the offending vehicle; that Rajinder Sharma was shifted to Civil Hospital, Derabassi, from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he died due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question. First Information Report no. 300 dated 24.12.2014, was registered at Police Station Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, under Section 279, 304-A of Indian Penal Code 071 dated 10.08.2015, against unknown vehicle.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and admitted the factum of compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal :-

“1. Whether Rajinder Sharma @ Bintu Kumar died in a road side accident due to rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No. HR68-A-1173 by its driver?OPP.

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?OPP.

3. Whether driver of the bus in question was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident?OPR-3.

4. Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 2 to the tune of Rs.13,31,000/-. However, the appellant-Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

6. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in concluding that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, i.e., a Haryana Roadways bus. It is contended that neither the said vehicle nor the name of its driver finds mention in the First Information Report, thereby casting serious doubt on its alleged involvement.

7. It is further argued that the implication of the bus in the present case is wholly false and unfounded. Learned counsel draws attention to the documentary evidence on record to contend that the vehicle in question had departed from Ambala at 08:20 a.m., whereas the accident is stated to have occurred at Derabassi at about 08:15 a.m. Given that the distance between the two locations ordinarily requires 30–40 minutes of travel, it is urged that the presence of the said vehicle at the place of occurrence at the relevant time is rendered highly